> Which is utterly and completely divorced from reality.
Do you have a citation for this statement? I would be very careful about saying things like this. You might be significantly more incorrect than you presume.
Do you have a citation for this statement? I would be very careful about saying things like this. You might be significantly more incorrect than you presume.
And all that totally ignores the fact that we're assuming the genes behind attractiveness (which can include indications of health, athleticism, and developmental symmetry) have zero effect on mental factors. That assumption would really require supporting evidence IMO.
Wait, what? My assertion is that physical attractiveness is not correlated with competence, trustworthiness, and being a good person. You see evidence that there is such a correlation?
My entire experience with people gives no hint of any such thing. The beautiful people I've known have not been more likely to have any of those qualities than the ugly people I've known.
I'd be very interested in any evidence of such a correlation. It would completely rock my world.
> the existence of this bias is itself telling us that attractive women are probably more likely to have more experience
This is a completely different thing, though.
> That assumption would really require supporting evidence IMO.
That's completely backward. If you're asserting a correlation, it's on you to provide supporting evidence for it. You are making a positive claim. All I'm saying is that I see no evidence in support of that claim.
If so, then I think it would be you that needs to provide evidence for it, if for no other reason that on casual inspection anyway, there is no hint that is the case.
Now you could argue that having the awareness to do this before an interview is a display of intelligence, however I would say that this is indicative of a type intelligence different to the one needed to be, say, a good engineer.